On Fri, 2013-08-09 at 14:21 +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > > Le 9 août 2013 13:39, "Ben Hutchings" <email@example.com> a écrit : > > > > On Fri, 2013-08-09 at 21:10 +1000, Craig Small wrote: > > > Besides my Debian duties I am also upstream for procps. I have > been in > > > discussion with the sysvinit-tools upstream and they want to find > a new > > > home for pidof so it "fits" with similiar tools (pidof used to be > in > > > procps in the dark ages). This means shortly that pidof will > disappear > > > from sysvinit-tools and appear in procps. > > > > > > If your package uses pidof, we need to talk about it NOW so that > this > > > change doesn't put you in the lurch. I believe merely depending on > procps > > > will do what is needed, with the right version. > > [...] > > > > I don't think this is a sensible thing to ask. There may be lots of > > scripts using pidof that their maintainers don't know about. I > suggest > > using codesearch.debian.net to find the packages. > > > Could you open a bug for a Lintian check? No, I won't. I would rather these packages were kept working without the need to change them all. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings I say we take off; nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part